The effectiveness of one-to-one peer support in mental health services: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Empowerment, recovery
Mental health services
Meta-analysis
Peer support
Peer worker
Randomised clinical trial
Social network
Systematic review
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 11 2020
11 11 2020
Historique:
received:
24
06
2020
accepted:
18
10
2020
entrez:
12
11
2020
pubmed:
13
11
2020
medline:
11
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Peer support is being introduced into mental health services internationally, often in response to workforce policy. Earlier systematic reviews incorporate different modalities of peer support (i.e. group and one-to-one), offer inconsistent evidence of effectiveness, and also indicate substantial heterogeneity and issues of quality in the evidence base at that time. An updated review, focussed on one-to-one peer support, is timely given current policy interest. This study aims to systematically review evidence for the effectiveness of one-to-one peer support interventions for adults using mental health services, and to explore heterogeneity in peer support interventions. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases from inception until 13 June 2019. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias, and meta-analyses conducted where multiple trials provided usable data. Twenty-three studies reporting nineteen trials were eligible, providing data from 3329 participants. While seven trials were of low to moderate risk of bias, incomplete reporting of data in many studies suggested bias in the evidence base. Peer support interventions included peer workers in paraclinical roles (e.g. case manager), providing structured behavioural interventions, or more flexible support for recovery. Meta-analyses were conducted for eleven outcomes, with evidence that one-to-one peer support may have a modest positive impact on self-reported recovery and empowerment. There was no impact on clinical symptoms or service use. Analyses of heterogeneity suggest that peer support might improve social network support. One-to-one peer support in mental health services might impact positively on psychosocial outcomes, but is unlikely to improve clinical outcomes. In order to better inform the introduction of peer support into mental health services, improvement of the evidence base requires complete reporting of outcome data, selection of outcomes that relate to intervention mechanisms, exploration of heterogeneity in the implementation of peer support and focused reviews of specific types of one-to-one peer support. Prospero identifier: CRD42015025621 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Peer support is being introduced into mental health services internationally, often in response to workforce policy. Earlier systematic reviews incorporate different modalities of peer support (i.e. group and one-to-one), offer inconsistent evidence of effectiveness, and also indicate substantial heterogeneity and issues of quality in the evidence base at that time. An updated review, focussed on one-to-one peer support, is timely given current policy interest. This study aims to systematically review evidence for the effectiveness of one-to-one peer support interventions for adults using mental health services, and to explore heterogeneity in peer support interventions.
METHOD
We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases from inception until 13 June 2019. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias, and meta-analyses conducted where multiple trials provided usable data.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies reporting nineteen trials were eligible, providing data from 3329 participants. While seven trials were of low to moderate risk of bias, incomplete reporting of data in many studies suggested bias in the evidence base. Peer support interventions included peer workers in paraclinical roles (e.g. case manager), providing structured behavioural interventions, or more flexible support for recovery. Meta-analyses were conducted for eleven outcomes, with evidence that one-to-one peer support may have a modest positive impact on self-reported recovery and empowerment. There was no impact on clinical symptoms or service use. Analyses of heterogeneity suggest that peer support might improve social network support.
CONCLUSIONS
One-to-one peer support in mental health services might impact positively on psychosocial outcomes, but is unlikely to improve clinical outcomes. In order to better inform the introduction of peer support into mental health services, improvement of the evidence base requires complete reporting of outcome data, selection of outcomes that relate to intervention mechanisms, exploration of heterogeneity in the implementation of peer support and focused reviews of specific types of one-to-one peer support.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Prospero identifier: CRD42015025621 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 33176729
doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02923-3
pii: 10.1186/s12888-020-02923-3
pmc: PMC7657356
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
534Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-PG-1212-20019
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Programme Grants for Applied Research
ID : RP-PG-1212-20019
Références
Psychiatr Serv. 1997 Aug;48(8):1042-7
pubmed: 9255837
Can J Occup Ther. 2015 Feb;82(1):64-73
pubmed: 25803949
J Ment Health. 2011 Aug;20(4):392-411
pubmed: 21770786
J Ment Health Adm. 1995 Spring;22(2):135-46
pubmed: 10142127
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Psychosomatics. 1995 May-Jun;36(3):267-75
pubmed: 7638314
Psychiatr Serv. 2011 May;62(5):541-4
pubmed: 21532082
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
J Affect Disord. 2012 Dec 15;142(1-3):98-105
pubmed: 22858215
Psychol Assess. 2008 Sep;20(3):310-5
pubmed: 18778168
Health Serv Res. 2004 Aug;39(4 Pt 1):1005-26
pubmed: 15230939
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Dec 1;68(12):1307-1311
pubmed: 28945186
Br J Psychiatry. 2020 Jun;216(6):301-307
pubmed: 31992375
Arch Fam Med. 2000 Aug;9(8):700-8
pubmed: 10927707
Psychiatr Serv. 2014 Apr 1;65(4):442-53
pubmed: 24487405
Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2011 Jan-Feb;33(1):29-36
pubmed: 21353125
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Mar 28;(3):CD004807
pubmed: 23543537
BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Feb 05;14:30
pubmed: 24495599
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 May 24;13:188
pubmed: 23705767
Br J Psychiatry. 1990 Dec;157:853-9
pubmed: 2289094
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2014 May;60(3):211-8
pubmed: 23539546
Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi. 2008;110(1):22-9
pubmed: 18402066
Aging Ment Health. 2017 Sep;21(9):968-974
pubmed: 27220057
Med Care. 2004 Dec;42(12):1230-41
pubmed: 15550803
Eur Psychiatry. 2017 May;42:103-110
pubmed: 28364685
Schizophr Bull. 1989;15(2):325-37
pubmed: 2749191
J Ment Health Adm. 1995 Spring;22(2):126-34
pubmed: 10142126
Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Jul 1;69(7):760-767
pubmed: 29656708
Psychol Med. 2007 Jan;37(1):85-95
pubmed: 17094819
Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2016 Sep;39(3):248-255
pubmed: 27618461
Eval Program Plann. 1982;5(3):233-7
pubmed: 10259963
Psychiatr Serv. 2007 Jun;58(6):802-9
pubmed: 17535940
Australas Psychiatry. 2008 Oct;16(5):348-53
pubmed: 18608147
BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Feb 14;14:39
pubmed: 24528545
Psychol Med. 1993 May;23(2):511-23
pubmed: 8332665
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2015 Oct;24(5):435-45
pubmed: 24992284
Psychol Med. 1983 Aug;13(3):595-605
pubmed: 6622612
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1976 Aug;44(4):580-5
pubmed: 939841
Psychiatr Serv. 2006 Aug;57(8):1179-84
pubmed: 16870970
Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun;62(6):666-9
pubmed: 21632737
BMJ. 1988 Oct 8;297(6653):897-9
pubmed: 3140969
Br J Clin Psychol. 1988 Nov;27(4):349-58
pubmed: 3214688
Gerontologist. 2006 Aug;46(4):503-13
pubmed: 16921004
Sociol Health Illn. 2019 Sep;41(7):1305-1322
pubmed: 31012987
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
Health Soc Care Community. 2014 Jan;22(1):104-12
pubmed: 24313729
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
Lancet. 2018 Aug 4;392(10145):409-418
pubmed: 30102174
Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Sep 1;69(9):961-977
pubmed: 29962310
Ment Health Serv Res. 2000 Sep;2(3):155-64
pubmed: 11256724
Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2016 Sep;39(3):239-47
pubmed: 27618460
J Behav Health Serv Res. 2015 Jan;42(1):109-21
pubmed: 23657754
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;(3):CD005032
pubmed: 16856072
J Ment Health. 2019 Dec;28(6):627-632
pubmed: 28682640